Step into a world where the focus is keenly set on How To Watch Super Why. Within the confines of this article, a tapestry of references to How To Watch Super Why awaits your exploration. If your pursuit involves unraveling the depths of How To Watch Super Why, you've arrived at the perfect destination.
Our narrative unfolds with a wealth of insights surrounding How To Watch Super Why. This is not just a standard article; it's a curated journey into the facets and intricacies of How To Watch Super Why. Whether you're thirsting for comprehensive knowledge or just a glimpse into the universe of How To Watch Super Why, this promises to be an enriching experience.
The spotlight is firmly on How To Watch Super Why, and as you navigate through the text on these digital pages, you'll discover an extensive array of information centered around How To Watch Super Why. This is more than mere information; it's an invitation to immerse yourself in the enthralling world of How To Watch Super Why.
So, if you're eager to satisfy your curiosity about How To Watch Super Why, your journey commences here. Let's embark together on a captivating odyssey through the myriad dimensions of How To Watch Super Why.
If you're streaming the Super Bowl, expect to lag behind Twitter and cable
If you're streaming the Super Bowl, expect to lag behind Twitter and cable
The 2022 Super Bowl is taking place in the state-of-the-art SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, but that doesn't mean the broadcasts or streams will be any more advanced than in recent years. NBC, the broadcaster for Super Bowl 56, has already said it won't be airing the big game in 4K resolution. And people who are watching the Super Bowl live through a streaming service are likely to experience a lag, just like in 2020 and 2021.
If you're planning to stream the big game through Peacock, YouTube TV, Sling TV or any of the other live TV platforms, expect your feed to be a bit behind. The length of the delay could vary, but based on last year's game, streaming services lag around 40 seconds behind what's on the field. Compare that to cable, satellite or antenna TV, where the time gap from on-the-field action is significantly less. It's usually a transmission delay of about 5 seconds, which allows for broadcasters to prevent unsavory content from appearing on TV.
In an era with Twitter, group chats and phone push notifications, a 40-second streaming delay can lead to spoilers of big plays. And with the increase in legalized sports gambling, it could also ruin the experience of trying to bet on the action.
This chart from last year's Super Bowl shows the delay behind the real-time play streaming services.
Phenix
Phenix, a technology company that provides the infrastructure for real-time video feeds, compared the streaming lags on apps from the NFL, Yahoo Sports, FuboTV, Hulu Plus Live TV, CBS Sports and YouTube TV. It found that last year's game (which aired on CBS) streamed fastest on YouTube TV with a delay of 42.2 seconds -- but that was only slightly quicker than the roughly 43-second delay from the NFL and Yahoo Sports apps. FuboTV came in at 44.8 seconds, while Hulu Plus Live TV finished last at 46.2 seconds. (Verizon offered an in-arena feed which was closest to real-time, but for 2022 that experience is limited to those in SoFi Stadium.)
The issue isn't internet speed but latency, that is, the time it takes to transfer what's happening in the real world back to your screen over the internet. Some streamers also tack on a few seconds to ensure a clear picture and smooth experience rather than generate pauses and buffering on your end.
NBC is the broadcaster for 2022's Super Bowl, but don't expect its own streams to be closer to real-time. Based on the company's feeds from the 2021 Stanley Cup, Phenix found that YouTube TV and AT&T TV (now DirecTV Stream) were still around 40 seconds behind the on-ice action, while Peacock lagged by 42.1 seconds.
The 2021 Stanley Cup, which was broadcast by NBC, wasn't much better than last year's Super Bowl.
Phenix
NBC did not respond to CNET's request for comment. We can't say whether the company is planning to make any improvements to latency in the feeds offered on Peacock or other streaming TV services for the 2022 Super Bowl.
In short, even in 2022, the best and fastest way to watch the Super Bowl is through cable, satellite or antenna TV. If you're planning to stream the game, be prepared for a delay, though there are still some steps you can take to bolster your network to avoid buffering and dropouts on game day.
Apple's Health app keeps evolving, with aspirations to be a complete combination personal data archive, medical liaison and insight engine. But the goals, while ambitious, aren't fully realized yet. iOS 16 and WatchOS 9 are adding medication management and multistage sleep tracking to a growing list of features. But what comes next, and will it start to become a tool that interfaces with doctors even more than it has?
Apple just published a multipage health report (PDF), which aims to detail where the company sees its health focus heading on the iPhone and the Apple Watch. The report covers the app, research studies and initiatives with medical organizations.
As Google prepares to release a Pixel Watch that will connect to Fitbit's features and services, Apple looks to be strengthening its position by expanding beyond the watch to a larger spectrum of health services. Already, Apple Health and Fitness Plus are evolving into services you don't need an Apple Watch to use.
When will Health start to become an extension of how I connect with my own doctors? Will sleep tracking offer a doorway to other health insights? And why doesn't Apple have its own equivalent of the "readiness score" used by Fitbit and Oura?
Apple's vice president of health, Dr. Sumbul Desai, spoke with CNET about the goals of Apple Health and where goals are being set next. She sees the blend of lifestyle with clinical data, medication data and an increasing number of metrics in one place as helping future insights in other health measurements over time.
"You have to do it in a really thoughtful and meaningful way," Desai said. "Because there are also correlations you can make that are incorrect. That's where the work is, making sure that when you make those connections that they are correct, grounded in the science and make sense to the user."
Medication tracking on iOS 16 looks like another step to bring medical histories onto Health.
Apple
Where does Apple Health meet your doctor?
As I've found over the last few months, over several surgeries and doctor visits, my own medical care doesn't often connect with my wearable and phone apps. Apple's been aiming to make strides to connect Apple Health with medical providers, but the framework isn't fully there yet for digital health platforms. A lot of Apple's promised benefits are in identifying long-term data patterns and insights.
"I do think how they interact with each other is really important," said Desai, who points to the new tracking of atrial fibrillation patterns over time in Watch OS 9. "We are actually taking how much time you're in AFib and correlating it to your lifestyle. How much you're sleeping. How much you're moving, you'll see the changes in AFib. If you're using Mindful Minutes, do you see a change."
Apple has tried making data sharing easier with doctors, but right now it still doesn't go far enough. At the medical group where I'm a patient, for instance, there's no obvious way to share the data I'm collecting in Apple Health through the patient portal.
Sleep tracking is gaining sleep stages in WatchOS 9. Will that bring a wave of other health insights down the road?
Apple
Sleep as the next frontier?
Apple's addition of sleep stage-based sleep tracking in the upcoming Watch OS 9 looks to close the gap on other fitness trackers like those from Fitbit, Samsung and Oura. Apple's been pulling new features for the Apple Watch from work in some of the company's ongoing heart research studies, and sleep could end up being a place that evolves next.
"What I'm really excited to learn from a scientific standpoint is, does the amount of sleep that you're getting in certain stages, like core [replenishing sleep], does that actually translate to benefit during the day when you're moving?" Desai said. "Are there certain phenotypes of certain people who have more benefit versus others? There's so much to tackle from a research standpoint there. We would never put anything out until we knew we kind of had some scientific grounding. The whole causation-correlation thing can get very tricky."
Desai suggested future research combining sleep stage data with Apple's ongoing heart and move data from its ongoing study will possibly provide more insights, "but we're still a ways away from that."
Could Apple ever develop its own readiness score?
One thing Apple's evolving and elaborate set of Health insights currently doesn't have is any sort of attempt at a distilled score, or personal health rating. Fitbit, Oura, and a number of other wearables have daily personal scores derived from a variety of individual metrics. I asked Desai whether Apple might pursue a similar idea anytime soon. While it sounds like a direction Apple Health could head in, it also seems like Apple is still trying to lock down the best path to get there.
"It's a really good question. I think the answer is, to be honest, is we don't have a firm POV yet," Desai said. "We want to understand the science behind that, and what can we understand and glean from a scientific standpoint."
Desai suggests that the health measurements, and their meanings, can vary. "HRV [heart rate variability] is a great metric. I'm super fascinated by HRV. But HRV can be changed based on multiple reasons." She suggested that Apple's eventual evolution of its insights will need to come with clear guidance, too.
"I think for us, we want to be able to provide actionable information. So to understand to do that, you actually have to be able to draw it back to, what we think is actually causing that? We are really trying to understand the science behind all of these different metrics and focus on how we provide insights that we know we can back up."
On whether Apple Health could come to other non-Apple devices
Apple's aiming for Health to be a comprehensive, secure system for anyone to use, but it still flows through Apple hardware, which means a portion of the population will always be left out. I asked Desai whether Apple Health might ever be available beyond iPhones.
"We're always looking at ways to support the ecosystem. We just want to make sure we can support that in a private and secure way. That's fundamentally what drives our decision making," Desai said. "We have a ton of things in the App Store ecosystem that are super interesting that people are doing, and we're very supportive of supporting that work.
"Honestly, we make a lot of decisions driven by privacy. And there's a lot of things we choose not to do and choose to do, based upon that."
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
The future of healthcare future healthcare future health biobank what the future of computers will look like what is the future of work what the future holds meaning what the future has in store what the hell what the peeper saw what s the weather
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
Apple's Health app keeps evolving, with aspirations to be a complete combination personal data archive, medical liaison and insight engine. But the goals, while ambitious, aren't fully realized yet. iOS 16 and WatchOS 9 are adding medication management and multistage sleep tracking to a growing list of features. But what comes next, and will it start to become a tool that interfaces with doctors even more than it has?
Apple just published a multipage health report (PDF), which aims to detail where the company sees its health focus heading on the iPhone and the Apple Watch. The report covers the app, research studies and initiatives with medical organizations.
As Google prepares to release a Pixel Watch that will connect to Fitbit's features and services, Apple looks to be strengthening its position by expanding beyond the watch to a larger spectrum of health services. Already, Apple Health and Fitness Plus are evolving into services you don't need an Apple Watch to use.
When will Health start to become an extension of how I connect with my own doctors? Will sleep tracking offer a doorway to other health insights? And why doesn't Apple have its own equivalent of the "readiness score" used by Fitbit and Oura?
Apple's vice president of health, Dr. Sumbul Desai, spoke with CNET about the goals of Apple Health and where goals are being set next. She sees the blend of lifestyle with clinical data, medication data and an increasing number of metrics in one place as helping future insights in other health measurements over time.
"You have to do it in a really thoughtful and meaningful way," Desai said. "Because there are also correlations you can make that are incorrect. That's where the work is, making sure that when you make those connections that they are correct, grounded in the science and make sense to the user."
Medication tracking on iOS 16 looks like another step to bring medical histories onto Health.
Apple
Where does Apple Health meet your doctor?
As I've found over the last few months, over several surgeries and doctor visits, my own medical care doesn't often connect with my wearable and phone apps. Apple's been aiming to make strides to connect Apple Health with medical providers, but the framework isn't fully there yet for digital health platforms. A lot of Apple's promised benefits are in identifying long-term data patterns and insights.
"I do think how they interact with each other is really important," said Desai, who points to the new tracking of atrial fibrillation patterns over time in Watch OS 9. "We are actually taking how much time you're in AFib and correlating it to your lifestyle. How much you're sleeping. How much you're moving, you'll see the changes in AFib. If you're using Mindful Minutes, do you see a change."
Apple has tried making data sharing easier with doctors, but right now it still doesn't go far enough. At the medical group where I'm a patient, for instance, there's no obvious way to share the data I'm collecting in Apple Health through the patient portal.
Sleep tracking is gaining sleep stages in WatchOS 9. Will that bring a wave of other health insights down the road?
Apple
Sleep as the next frontier?
Apple's addition of sleep stage-based sleep tracking in the upcoming Watch OS 9 looks to close the gap on other fitness trackers like those from Fitbit, Samsung and Oura. Apple's been pulling new features for the Apple Watch from work in some of the company's ongoing heart research studies, and sleep could end up being a place that evolves next.
"What I'm really excited to learn from a scientific standpoint is, does the amount of sleep that you're getting in certain stages, like core [replenishing sleep], does that actually translate to benefit during the day when you're moving?" Desai said. "Are there certain phenotypes of certain people who have more benefit versus others? There's so much to tackle from a research standpoint there. We would never put anything out until we knew we kind of had some scientific grounding. The whole causation-correlation thing can get very tricky."
Desai suggested future research combining sleep stage data with Apple's ongoing heart and move data from its ongoing study will possibly provide more insights, "but we're still a ways away from that."
Could Apple ever develop its own readiness score?
One thing Apple's evolving and elaborate set of Health insights currently doesn't have is any sort of attempt at a distilled score, or personal health rating. Fitbit, Oura, and a number of other wearables have daily personal scores derived from a variety of individual metrics. I asked Desai whether Apple might pursue a similar idea anytime soon. While it sounds like a direction Apple Health could head in, it also seems like Apple is still trying to lock down the best path to get there.
"It's a really good question. I think the answer is, to be honest, is we don't have a firm POV yet," Desai said. "We want to understand the science behind that, and what can we understand and glean from a scientific standpoint."
Desai suggests that the health measurements, and their meanings, can vary. "HRV [heart rate variability] is a great metric. I'm super fascinated by HRV. But HRV can be changed based on multiple reasons." She suggested that Apple's eventual evolution of its insights will need to come with clear guidance, too.
"I think for us, we want to be able to provide actionable information. So to understand to do that, you actually have to be able to draw it back to, what we think is actually causing that? We are really trying to understand the science behind all of these different metrics and focus on how we provide insights that we know we can back up."
On whether Apple Health could come to other non-Apple devices
Apple's aiming for Health to be a comprehensive, secure system for anyone to use, but it still flows through Apple hardware, which means a portion of the population will always be left out. I asked Desai whether Apple Health might ever be available beyond iPhones.
"We're always looking at ways to support the ecosystem. We just want to make sure we can support that in a private and secure way. That's fundamentally what drives our decision making," Desai said. "We have a ton of things in the App Store ecosystem that are super interesting that people are doing, and we're very supportive of supporting that work.
"Honestly, we make a lot of decisions driven by privacy. And there's a lot of things we choose not to do and choose to do, based upon that."
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
What the future of health looks like we made what the future of health looks like christmas what the future of health looks good what the future of health looks can be deceiving what the future of cell phones in 2022 what the future of gnc store what the future of nursing looks like what the future of restaurants might look like what the future holds quote what the future beholds what the dog doin what the hales
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
What the Future of Health Looks Like for Apple
Apple's Health app keeps evolving, with aspirations to be a complete combination personal data archive, medical liaison and insight engine. But the goals, while ambitious, aren't fully realized yet. iOS 16 and WatchOS 9 are adding medication management and multistage sleep tracking to a growing list of features. But what comes next, and will it start to become a tool that interfaces with doctors even more than it has?
Apple just published a multipage health report (PDF), which aims to detail where the company sees its health focus heading on the iPhone and the Apple Watch. The report covers the app, research studies and initiatives with medical organizations.
As Google prepares to release a Pixel Watch that will connect to Fitbit's features and services, Apple looks to be strengthening its position by expanding beyond the watch to a larger spectrum of health services. Already, Apple Health and Fitness Plus are evolving into services you don't need an Apple Watch to use.
When will Health start to become an extension of how I connect with my own doctors? Will sleep tracking offer a doorway to other health insights? And why doesn't Apple have its own equivalent of the "readiness score" used by Fitbit and Oura?
Apple's vice president of health, Dr. Sumbul Desai, spoke with CNET about the goals of Apple Health and where goals are being set next. She sees the blend of lifestyle with clinical data, medication data and an increasing number of metrics in one place as helping future insights in other health measurements over time.
"You have to do it in a really thoughtful and meaningful way," Desai said. "Because there are also correlations you can make that are incorrect. That's where the work is, making sure that when you make those connections that they are correct, grounded in the science and make sense to the user."
Medication tracking on iOS 16 looks like another step to bring medical histories onto Health.
Apple
Where does Apple Health meet your doctor?
As I've found over the last few months, over several surgeries and doctor visits, my own medical care doesn't often connect with my wearable and phone apps. Apple's been aiming to make strides to connect Apple Health with medical providers, but the framework isn't fully there yet for digital health platforms. A lot of Apple's promised benefits are in identifying long-term data patterns and insights.
"I do think how they interact with each other is really important," said Desai, who points to the new tracking of atrial fibrillation patterns over time in Watch OS 9. "We are actually taking how much time you're in AFib and correlating it to your lifestyle. How much you're sleeping. How much you're moving, you'll see the changes in AFib. If you're using Mindful Minutes, do you see a change."
Apple has tried making data sharing easier with doctors, but right now it still doesn't go far enough. At the medical group where I'm a patient, for instance, there's no obvious way to share the data I'm collecting in Apple Health through the patient portal.
Sleep tracking is gaining sleep stages in WatchOS 9. Will that bring a wave of other health insights down the road?
Apple
Sleep as the next frontier?
Apple's addition of sleep stage-based sleep tracking in the upcoming Watch OS 9 looks to close the gap on other fitness trackers like those from Fitbit, Samsung and Oura. Apple's been pulling new features for the Apple Watch from work in some of the company's ongoing heart research studies, and sleep could end up being a place that evolves next.
"What I'm really excited to learn from a scientific standpoint is, does the amount of sleep that you're getting in certain stages, like core [replenishing sleep], does that actually translate to benefit during the day when you're moving?" Desai said. "Are there certain phenotypes of certain people who have more benefit versus others? There's so much to tackle from a research standpoint there. We would never put anything out until we knew we kind of had some scientific grounding. The whole causation-correlation thing can get very tricky."
Desai suggested future research combining sleep stage data with Apple's ongoing heart and move data from its ongoing study will possibly provide more insights, "but we're still a ways away from that."
Could Apple ever develop its own readiness score?
One thing Apple's evolving and elaborate set of Health insights currently doesn't have is any sort of attempt at a distilled score, or personal health rating. Fitbit, Oura, and a number of other wearables have daily personal scores derived from a variety of individual metrics. I asked Desai whether Apple might pursue a similar idea anytime soon. While it sounds like a direction Apple Health could head in, it also seems like Apple is still trying to lock down the best path to get there.
"It's a really good question. I think the answer is, to be honest, is we don't have a firm POV yet," Desai said. "We want to understand the science behind that, and what can we understand and glean from a scientific standpoint."
Desai suggests that the health measurements, and their meanings, can vary. "HRV [heart rate variability] is a great metric. I'm super fascinated by HRV. But HRV can be changed based on multiple reasons." She suggested that Apple's eventual evolution of its insights will need to come with clear guidance, too.
"I think for us, we want to be able to provide actionable information. So to understand to do that, you actually have to be able to draw it back to, what we think is actually causing that? We are really trying to understand the science behind all of these different metrics and focus on how we provide insights that we know we can back up."
On whether Apple Health could come to other non-Apple devices
Apple's aiming for Health to be a comprehensive, secure system for anyone to use, but it still flows through Apple hardware, which means a portion of the population will always be left out. I asked Desai whether Apple Health might ever be available beyond iPhones.
"We're always looking at ways to support the ecosystem. We just want to make sure we can support that in a private and secure way. That's fundamentally what drives our decision making," Desai said. "We have a ton of things in the App Store ecosystem that are super interesting that people are doing, and we're very supportive of supporting that work.
"Honestly, we make a lot of decisions driven by privacy. And there's a lot of things we choose not to do and choose to do, based upon that."
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.
8k tv samsung 8k tv deals 8k tvs 2021 8k tv for sale 8k tv lg 8k tv 55 inch 8k tv reviews 8k tv 2022
8K TV Explained, and Why You Definitely Don't Need to Buy One
8K TV Explained, and Why You Definitely Don't Need to Buy One
Believe it or not, 8K TVs are available right now. Yep, 8K, as in four times the resolution of Ultra HD 4K TVs. You can, if you really want to, buy models from Samsung, Sony, LG and TCL in a variety of sizes. As you'd expect from cutting-edge technology with over 30 million pixels, the prices are quite high. In most cases 8K TVs cost more than a high-end, and often higher-quality, 4K TV.
Should you consider an 8K TV? Are they the best TVs out there? In a word: No. In two words: Not yet. You're better off getting a high-quality 4K TV for far less money. It will look better with 99.9% of the content you put on it. That said, 8K is here, and it's not going away, so it's worth taking a closer look. You'll need to look very close, as those pixels are tiny.
Eventually 8K will be far more mainstream. It's possible 4K will go the way of all those lower resolutions, and be relegated to tech history. Does this mean your 4K TV is already obsolete? Should you wait to buy a new TV until 8K prices drop? Do you need an 8K TV for the PlayStation 5 or Xbox Series X? Read on for the answer to all these questions and more.
Read more: PS5 and Xbox Series X Can Game in 8K Resolution. Should You Care?
This shows the relative number of pixels in each of the major resolution formats. Not actual size of course; this is a chart not a visual representation (though it is to scale if you click on it). From largest to smallest: 8K (tangerine), 4K Cinema in 1.78:1 aspect ratio (black); Ultra HD (white); 2K Cinema in 1.78:1 aspect ratio (green); Full HD 1080p (red); 720p (blue). For more detail, pun intended, check out 4K vs. 8K vs. 1080p: TV resolutions explained.
Geoffrey Morrison/CNET
Is it worth buying an 8K TV?
Here's a quick summary of our current thinking regarding 8K TVs in early 2022.
Unless you have money to burn, don't even consider buying one right now.
From what we've seen, there's little, if any, image quality improvement over 4K TVs.
Any improvement we have seen required sitting very close to a very large screen.
To get the most out of any 8K TV, you need actual 8K content (and there basically isn't any).
Both new consoles promise 8K resolution, but that's potentially misleading.
In the next few years 8K TVs will get cheaper and perhaps actually be worth considering.
To reiterate, one of the biggest reasons 8K TVs are not as amazing as you might expect, besides their price, is that there simply aren't any 8K TV shows or movies to watch on them. And while the latest gaming consoles will eventually do 8K (maybe), 8K games today are basically nonexistent. The best you can get in most cases is 4K, so all those extra pixels of an 8K TV won't be used to their fullest potential.
Now that you've slid your wallet back into your pocket, sit back and soak in everything there is to know about 8K TVs today.
Read more: Remember When TVs Weighed 200 Pounds? A Look Back at TV Trends Over the Years
What is 8K, and is it better than a 4K TV?
A traditional HDTV from a few years ago is 1080p, which means it has 1,920 pixels horizontally and 1,080 vertically. Many digital cinema projectors -- the ones in movie theaters -- have a resolution of 2,048x1,080. Because it's common in Hollywood-speak to only refer to the horizontal resolution, they call that "2K," but it's basically the same as the HDTV 1080p you have at home.
Mathias Appel/HDMI Licensing
The term "4K" comes from the digital cinema side, too, with a horizontal resolution of 4,096, hence "4K." However, on the TV side, manufacturing efficiencies meant we got double the horizontal and vertical resolutions of 1080p HDTV, so 3,840x2,160 pixels. Everyone colloquially calls this "4K," though the technical term is Ultra HD. This has four times as many pixels as 1080p HD.
Which brings us to 8K. You guessed it: twice the horizontal and vertical resolution of 4K, for a whopping 7,680x4,320 and 33,177,600 total pixels. Not only is that four times the resolution of 4K, that's an incredible 16 times more pixels than 1080p. Or to put that differently, you could put 16 full-resolution 1080p videos on an 8K screen at the same time with no loss of quality. I'm not sure why you'd want to do this, but hey, why not?
Read more: 4K vs. 8K vs. 1080p: TV Resolutions Explained
TV and projector resolutions
Resolution name
Horizontal x vertical pixels
Total pixels
Other names
Found on
8K
7,680x4,320
33,177,600
8K Ultra HD, Ultra High Definition (UHD), Super Hi-Vision, UHD-2
High-end TVs
4K
3,840x2,160
8,294,400
Ultra High Definition (UHD)
Most modern TVs, some projectors
1080p
1,920x1,080
2,073,600
High Definition (HD)
Smaller, less expensive and older TVs, most projectors
720p
1,280x720
921,600
High Definition (HD)
Very small and older TVs
The Consumer Technology Association's 8K Ultra HD logo.
CTA
One thing to look for in new 8K TVs: It will feature the official logo and "spec" on new 8K TVs. This goes beyond raw pixel count to help you find TVs that perform to at least a certain standard. This is partly to avoid the mess from the early days of HD and 4K, where some of the first TVs couldn't accept a full HD or later, a 4K signal. The Consumer Technology Association lays out the following minimums a TV is required to have to wear the 8K Ultra HD logo:
At least 7,680 pixels horizontally and 4,320 vertically.
At least one HDMI input capable of accepting that resolution, at 50 or 60 fps (depending on region), with HDR.
The ability to upconvert lower resolution signals to 8K.
The ability to receive and display 10-bit content.
Can the human eye even see 8K?
Technically yes it can, but the difference will be very subtle at best.
As we've explained many times with 4K TVs, there's a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolution. The human eye can see only so much detail, and extra pixels beyond what you can discern are basically wasted. To get anything out of higher resolutions and their proportionally tinier pixels, you need to sit closer, get a bigger TV, or both.
It's rare that anyone gets a large enough TV -- or sits close enough to one -- to justify the need for even 4K resolutions. 8K is excessive overkill... at least for a TV. If you're talking about massive theater-size screens like Samsung's Wall or Sony's Crystal LED, 8K would be amazing. But since 4K is hard to discern when comparing to a 1080p TV, 4K to 8K from 10 feet away will be pretty much impossible.
That said, because 8K TVs are currently the most expensive offerings from most companies, they often have features which help them produce stunning images that are completely divorced from resolution. So most 8K TVs, with the likely exception of the "cheap" models, will usually look great regardless of their pixel count.
Read more: Best 4K Projectors for 2022
TCL's 65-inch 8K 6-Series TV.
TCL
8K content: Can I actually watch anything in 8K?
Without 8K content, an 8K TV is just a 4K TV with a few thousand dollars stuck to it with duct tape. Samsung talks up fancy "AI" upscaling technology on its TVs, designed to improve the look of mere 4K and 1080p sources on an 8K screen. And other TV makers like Sony and LG have touted their own 8K special sauces. But to get the most out of all those 33 million-plus pixels, the incoming source needs to be 8K too.
There are three main aspects to getting any new format, like 8K, into your home:
1. Content recorded in the new format
2. Transmission of the new format (broadcast, streaming, etc.)
3. Playback of the new format
An 8K TV represents the last part of the system: playback. That's the easy part. Any TV manufacturer can design and produce a TV with any resolution it wants. It's just up to the company and its resources.
Creating content in the new resolution, meanwhile, is a lot tougher. While the number of 8K-capable cameras has dramatically increased in the last few years, they're still expensive to buy or rent. In most cases, these cameras are used to create 4K content instead. There are lots of reasons it's a great idea to capture in 8K. The end result, however, is 4K, because of the second part of the process (transmission).
Read more: How I Built My Dream 8K-Capable Video Editing PC
The Red Monstro 8K VV "Brain" has a 35.4-megapixel CMOS sensor, can record 8K video at 60 fps, has over 17 stops of dynamic range, and costs -- brace yourself -- $54,500.
Red
Ultra HD 4K transmission takes a lot of data. You need a really fast internet connection to stream it. Streaming 8K is a whole other level, well beyond what many have in their homes. With only a tiny percentage of their audience able to see it, mainstream streaming services are slow to adopt higher resolutions, with the increase in cost of storage, processing and more.
Which is all to say, don't expect 8K versions of your favorite streaming shows anytime soon. And without 8K content, the main benefit of an 8K TV is at least partially wasted.
Do I need 8K to play Xbox Series X or PlayStation 5 games?
Both Sony and Microsoft have announced that their next-generation gaming consoles, the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X, will both be capable of outputting 8K resolution via future updates. Sounds like a great excuse to buy an 8K TV, right? Not so fast.
First, and most important, you will not need an 8K TV to play games on these consoles. They will work just fine on most 1080p and nearly all 4K TVs. If you can connect a PS4 or Xbox One to your current TV, it will work with a PS5 or Xbox Series X.
Read more:Sony PS5 vs. Microsoft Xbox Series X: Game On
Secondly, games will need to be specifically written to take advantage of 8K, something that isn't going to be particularly common. The resolution you see on screen, even if your TV says it's 8K, might not be what resolution the console is rendering the game. It will likely be far more common for the console to build the game's visuals at a lower resolution, 1440p or 4K at best, and convert to 8K to send your TV. This is the same thing your TV does automatically.
Andrew Hoyle/CNET
A Sony spokesperson confirmed that this FAQ, published on the PlayStation blog in November 2020, was still the case: "PS5 is compatible with 8K displays at launch, and after a future system software update will be able to output resolutions up to 8K when content is available, with supported software." We're still waiting for that update.
"Xbox Series X is fully capable of 8K output. However, as there is no media content or games that currently support 8K resolution, we have not enabled the option within the system settings at this time. Xbox Series X was designed with the next 8 to 10 years of advancements in mind, and as we see signals from creators and 8K becomes a more widely adopted format, we will update console software to support it," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
Long story short, few games will look much different on an 8K TV than they will on a 4K TV. There is limited time and money when you develop a game (well, most games), and few developers will want to invest those limited resources on something only a handful of people will be able to enjoy. Far more likely are games rendered in 4K with higher frame rates, something else made possible by the latest version of HDMI and available on the new consoles.
Read more: 120Hz Gaming: Best TVs for PS5 and Xbox Series X
Where can I stream 8K? Do Netflix or YouTube support it?
Getting the 8K onto your new 8K TV is also a bit of a challenge. Ideally, the TV's internal apps for Netflix, Amazon Prime Video and the rest will be 8K compatible. You'd think that'd be a given, but it wasn't in the early days of 4K. Further, there's no 8K content from any major streaming service available yet. The exceptions are YouTube, as you see in the video below, Vimeo and a new service called The Explorers exclusive to 8K Roku TVs. Eventually, ATSC 3.0, also known as Next Gen TV, might allow 8K to be broadcast over the air, but we're a long way from that.
How fast does your internet need to be to stream 8K?
8K also presents another issue for the early adopter: The bandwidth required is immense. Most 4K content streaming companies recommend you have an internet connection in the 20Mbps range. 8K, even with everything else the same, has four times as many pixels.
That doesn't equate exactly to a 4x increase in data or bandwidth, but, and this is just a ballpark guess, a connection requirement in the 40 to 50Mbps range wouldn't be unexpected. Maybe you, cutting-edge CNET reader, have that kind of speed, but most people do not.
A visual representation of how much more bandwidth the upcoming Ultra High Speed cables can handle.
HDMI Forum
What kind of HDMI cable do I need for 8K?
One thing we've already got is the physical connection thing sorted in case any 8K media streamers hit the market or they're needed for the PS5 and Xbox Series X. HDMI 2.1 is capable of 8K resolutions and more. But before you rush out and stock up on HDMI 2.1-compatible cables, keep in mind there will almost certainly be a new standard between now and the wide adoption of 8K. So those cables might be obsolete, despite their current forward-looking appearance.
All of the major 8K TV makers say that their sets have HDMI 2.1 inputs capable of handling the 48Mbps bandwidth required for the highest resolution and frame-rate combinations (8K and 60 frames per second and 4K at 120 fps). We also got a look at some new, higher-bandwidth HDMI cables.
To take advantage of higher 4K frame rates on the new consoles, presuming your TV can handle them, you might need new cables.
Read more: When is the Best Time to Buy a TV?
Is 8K TV a gimmick?
To put on my cynic hat, increasing resolution is one of the easiest ways to offer the appearance of higher performance. This is likely what TV makers are smoking, coming out with 8K TVs when there's essentially no content and no 8K infrastructure.
Given how easy it was to market 4K as "better looking than 1080p," TV makers are claiming the same thing with 8K. But resolution is just one aspect of overall picture quality, and not one of the most important ones. Improving other aspects, such as contrast ratios, overall brightness for HDR, more lifelike colors and so on, offer better image improvements but they are significantly harder to implement. This is especially true for LCD, which is a technology Samsung is still strongly flogging -- e.g. all of its QLED TVs are simply LCD TVs with quantum dots.
It's relatively easy to create a higher-resolution LCD panel, but improving the other aspects of performance for that tech is a greater challenge. Not "more" pixels but "better" pixels. This is why OLED is a thing, and why many companies are researching new technologies like true direct-view quantum dot displays, MicroLED, and mini-LED. Samsung is even coming out with an OLED-quantum dot hybrid that promises to combine the contrast ratio of OLED and the bright colors of quantum dot-based displays. These technologies, regardless of resolution, should look better than 8K TVs, which are currently only LCD-based.
Well, except for LG's OLED, which costs $20-$30,000 depending on size.
Direct-view quantum dot display.
Nanosys
Bottom line: Don't wait for 8K
If you're thinking about buying a new TV, does this mean you should hold off? If your current TV works, you should probably hold on to it regardless. New 8K TVs shouldn't be a factor, because as we mentioned above, early 8K TVs are expensive. We're also many, many years away from any sort of widespread 8K content. We arguably don't have widespread 4K content, and no one is talking about scrapping 4K to go directly to 8K.
The other aspect is a warning that will be seconded by countless 4K early adopters: There's no guarantee these early 8K TVs will end up being compatible with any future 8K standard. There are tens of thousands of 4K TVs that can't play any current 4K media content.
Lastly, even as prices drop, like they have with the $2,200 TCL 8K 6-series, you're almost certainly better off with a 4K TV for the same money. It offers better picture quality overall and only lacks the bragging rights that you have more pixels than your neighbor. But if that's your thing, go for it.
Update, March 14, 2022: This article was first published in 2018 and is regularly updated with new info.
As well as covering TV and other display tech, Geoff does photo tours of cool museums and locations around the world, including nuclear submarines, massive aircraft carriers, medieval castles, epic 10,000 mile road trips, and more. Check out Tech Treks for all his tours and adventures.
He wrote a bestselling sci-fi novel about city-size submarines, along with a sequel. You can follow his adventures on Instagram and his YouTube channel.
It was a long time coming -- like, forever and a day -- but the new Ford Bronco is here, giving off-road enthusiasts another excellent way to get a little more dirt in their diets. But the folks at Jeep were not about to sit on the sidelines and watch their frenemies in Dearborn one-up them with a more capable rig, which is why they developed the Xtreme Recon Package for the popular Wrangler Unlimited.
Like Broncos fitted with the available Sasquatch Package, Jeep's $3,995 options group gets you several off-road-focused enhancements, most importantly, 35-inch BF Goodrich KO2 all-terrain tires mounted to 17-inch beadlock-capable wheels. To support the mammoth spare, Wranglers fitted with this package also gain reinforced swing gates. I mean, the last thing you want is the back door falling off while you're out on the trail. Aside from all that, you get a 4.56:1 axle ratio and a 1.5-inch suspension lift complete with unique shock absorbers.
These meaty 35-inch all-terrain tires will get you just about anywhere.
Craig Cole/Roadshow
The Xtreme Recon Package is only available on the four-door Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited models, including the fire-breathing Rubicon 392. In comparison, the Sasquatch upgrade is available across the Bronco model range including on both two- and four-door variants.
Despite its somewhat limited accessibility, the Xtreme Recon Package one-ups competitors in certain metrics. It promises best-in-class approach and departure angles, ground clearance and water-fording capability. In these areas, the Wrangler beats a Sasquatch-ified four-door Bronco and even the fancy Land Rover Defender 110.
Off-Road Specs
Wrangler Unlimited w/ Xtreme Recon
Bronco 4-Door w/ Sasquatch
Defender 110
Approach angle
47.4 deg
43.2 deg
38.0 deg
Breakover angle
26.7 deg
26.3 deg
28.0 deg
Departure angle
40.4 deg
37.0 deg
40.0 deg
Ground clearance
12.9 in
11.5 in
11.5 in
Water fording
33.6 in
33.5 in
35.4 in
The Xtreme Recon Package is available with two powertrains, either a 3.6-liter V6 bolstered by a mild-hybrid system or a 6.4-liter Hemi in the Wrangler Rubicon 392. The smaller offering is much less dramatic than that thundering V8, but it's still incredibly effective, delivering 285 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of twist. This example's eTorque-enhanced Pentastar engine is dynamite, super smooth and plenty potent, with a linear powerband and good thrust. The eight-speed automatic transmission is a jewel as well, shifting just about perfectly, making for a powertrain dream team.
Inside, it's standard Wrangler fare.
Craig Cole/Roadshow
The EPA says you can expect 19 mpg in the city with this Wrangler and an optimistic 24 mpg on highway drives. Combined, it should average 21 mpg, though I'm barely getting 8 mpg in mixed use, which is a little disappointing, though not surprising.
The Xtreme Recon Package makes the already beastly Wrangler Rubicon even more of a dirt demon, but how livable is this setup on pavement, when driving between trailheads or to after-school activities? The elevated ride height and massive tires produce a ride that's bouncy and jiggly, though it is nicely compliant. This is also a vehicle that needs constant attention to stay in the center of its lane because the steering is, at best, a rough approximation. Stiff crosswinds will make this Jeep veer for oncoming traffic or the ditch if you're not careful.
Still, it's not all bad. Like standard Wranglers, the Xtreme Recon is remarkably comfortable for the off-road capability it provides. Despite the elevated stance, there's only a whiff of roll in corners. Engineers have done an extraordinary job civilizing this vehicle's horse-and-buggy-inspired chassis, making those live axles livable in everyday use. Sure, the boxy body and $4,095 Sky One-Touch power-folding roof conspire to produce a fair amount of wind noise at speed, but it's nowhere near unbearable, plus those knobby BF Goodrich tires barely make a peep on pavement, which is a huge surprise.
The whole package looks pretty good.
Craig Cole/Roadshow
Inside, you get the same great Wrangler cabin that's been offered since the JL generation launched in 2018. Soft materials abound, the various switches and knobs are not only chunky and easy to use without taking your eyes off the road, they feel like quality, too. The optional, $1,995 8.4-inch dashboard screen with the Uconnect 4C Nav infotainment system looks great and the software is as responsive and easy to use. Downsides to the Wrangler Unlimited Rubicon with the Xtreme Recon Package are few. It's a steep climb getting onboard, so bring a step stool if you're vertically challenged. The front seats aren't particularly comfortable and the rear bench is tough to get into and out of because of the annoyingly narrow door openings.
The Jeep Wrangler is a huge moneymaker for its parent company, Stellantis. One look at the window sticker and it's easy to see why this is such a lucrative product. The Rubicon model already starts in the mid-$40,000s, but this example checks out for $67,645 including $1,495 in destination fees. That MSRP is inflated by a range of options, from the $4,095 folding roof to the $3,995 Xtreme Recon Package to the $1,745 steel bumper to $1,695 for leather-trimmed seats, to name a handful of extras. Of course, if you have your eye on the V8-powered model, you'll have no trouble eclipsing the 80-grand threshold, which is, well, ludicrous.
But as they say, you've got to pay if you want to play. Hardcore off-roaders that lust after a turn-key mudslinger backed by a factory warranty will be well-served by a Wrangler Unlimited with the Xtreme Recon Package. Aside from being one of the most capable vehicles available today, its delightful powertrains, upscale interior and passable on-road dynamics make it an easy recommendation, even as competitors, like Ford's Bronco, turn up the heat.
